A person without subsisting title or interest cannot seek variation of an implemented town-planning scheme.

The appellant claimed an interest in 507 sq. m. of land through a notarized agreement to sell with possession and a general power of attorney executed in 2008 in favour of his mother.

The land was included in Town Planning Scheme No. 86 (Vatva-3): the draft scheme was sanctioned in 2006, the preliminary scheme notified in 2015, and the final scheme sanctioned in 2018.

After notices to vacate, the Corporation took possession and demolished the existing structures on 20 May 2023 to implement the scheme; a reconstituted final plot had been allotted to the original owners.

In 2025, the appellant withdrew an earlier writ petition with liberty to seek variation under Section 70 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

The Corporation rejected his variation application on 12 May 2026, and the learned Single Judge dismissed his challenge. The appellant then filed this appeal.

Whether the appellant, relying on a notarized agreement to sell and related documents, established a subsisting right, title, or interest in the land sufficient to seek variation of the town planning scheme under Section 70.

Whether the appellant’s application for variation could be entertained after the scheme had been implemented and possession taken, where he had not asserted a claim during the scheme-preparation stages.

The Court considered Sections 70 and 71 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, in relation to variation of a town planning scheme, and Section 68 read with Rule 33 in relation to eviction for scheme implementation.

It held that variation under Sections 70/71 requires the applicant to have a subsisting right, title, or interest in the land; the Court further reasoned that a person without such an established interest could not obtain an additional final plot after the scheme had been implemented.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that the appellant had not established a legal interest in the land: his claim rested on a notarized agreement to sell, while the original owners had received a reconstituted final plot and were not impleaded in the writ proceedings.

The appellant had also not raised an objection or sought an allotment during preparation of the draft or preliminary scheme.

By the time he sought variation, the scheme had been implemented and possession had been taken in 2023; the earlier order granting liberty to apply under Section 70 had not determined the merits of his claim.

Accordingly, the Court found no basis to fault the Corporation’s rejection or the Single Judge’s dismissal.

It found no error of law in the Single Judge’s decision, dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, made no order as to costs, and disposed of the connected stay application.